On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:14:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Oh, I missed that one in the twisty passages of the setattr code. > I'll do another (more careful) pass across all the callers, and for > those that are outside a transaction I'll add a separate call to > xfs_mark_inode_dirty_sync() for them. I'd prefer to be on the safe side - rename xfs_ichgtime to xfs_trans_inode_chgtime or similar, and assert that the added transaction-argument is non-zero and the inode is locked and added to the transactions. That way it's easier to spot which timestamp updates are transactional and which not. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
